HB2992 creates the “Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026” and is aimed at large new electric loads, especially data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations, and artificial-intelligence computing facilities. The bill defines a “large load customer” as a new facility or set of facilities adding 75 megawatts or more after July 1, 2026, and excludes ordinary residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial customers. It directs electric-rate regulators and other governing bodies to ensure that these large-load customers do not shift their costs onto other ratepayers and that rates remain fair, just, reasonable, and allocated according to cost-causation principles.
The bill requires all electric suppliers in Oklahoma to create separate service terms and tariffs for large-load customers, including credit requirements and other protections to ensure those customers pay the costs they cause. It also requires a minimum 10-year service term for large-load customers, with a limited exception for public power utilities using tax-exempt municipal financing. The act applies broadly to investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, and public power utilities, and it authorizes the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to adopt rules and, where it has jurisdiction, to enforce the act exclusively.
HB2992 also adds a notice requirement for large-load customers or their developers when they purchase land outside an industrial development park or municipality. They must notify the Corporation Commission, county commissioners, and adjacent property owners within 60 days of the purchase. Failure to provide notice triggers an administrative penalty of $1,500 per day per violation, collected and enforced by county commissioners. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026, but also includes an emergency clause, indicating immediate effectiveness upon passage and approval.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee support and overwhelming floor votes in both chambers. The House Utilities Committee and House Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee both advanced the bill unanimously, the Senate Energy Committee reported it out unanimously, and final readings in both chambers passed without opposition. The limited recorded discussion suggests no major controversy in committee, though the bill’s subject matter implies concern about protecting existing ratepayers from the costs of serving very large industrial loads.
The main points of contention, based on the bill’s structure rather than recorded debate, are likely to involve how costs are allocated to large-load customers, the mandatory 10-year service commitment, and the land-purchase notice and penalty provisions. These provisions could affect data center developers, crypto mining operations, AI computing projects, utilities, and local governments differently, especially where large projects seek favorable power rates or flexible exit terms. The bill’s broad application to multiple utility types and its enforcement scheme through both the Corporation Commission and county commissioners also suggest potential jurisdictional and implementation issues.
HB2992 adds a new chapter of law in Title 17 governing electric service for large-load customers and ratepayer protection. It expands the Corporation Commission’s role for regulated utilities, requires separate tariffs and service terms for qualifying large-load customers, and imposes notice and penalty obligations tied to land purchases for large projects. The bill affects investor-owned utilities, cooperatives, municipal utilities, public power utilities, large data center and AI facilities, cryptocurrency mining operations, developers, adjacent landowners, county commissioners, and the Corporation Commission.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the available record. It advanced unanimously through committee stages, passed the House and Senate with very large margins, and received final readings without dissent. The discussion record is sparse, but the voting history indicates the measure was viewed as a consumer-protection and utility-rate-management bill rather than a controversial policy change.
The likely substantive disagreements concern whether large-load customers should bear all incremental system costs, whether a mandatory 10-year service term is appropriate, and whether the notice-and-penalty regime is burdensome for developers. Utilities and regulators may also differ on how to apply cost-causation principles, how to structure separate tariffs, and how jurisdiction is split between the Corporation Commission and local authorities. While no strong opposition is recorded in the provided materials, these are the provisions most likely to draw scrutiny from data center developers, crypto miners, AI facility operators, and utilities.